Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Barry ran for office claiming that HE had the ability to get things done. WE knew better when we saw his non-existent resume of past experience.
Not only that, he ran around for 5 years shouting recovery this, and recovery that, and if only we'd raise taxes then poor people will become rich, and things will be even once again..
"President Obama likes to talk about income inequality, but what matters far more is the actual income of the typical American. And how has the typical American household income fared on Obama's watch? Well, the economic "recovery" has now spanned an Olympiad, and during that time the typical American household income has not only dropped—it has dropped more than twice as much as it did during the recession.
New estimates derived from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey by Sentier Research indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted) median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession. During the recession, the median American household income fell by $1,002 (from $55,480 to $54,478). During the recovery—that is, from the officially defined end of the recession (in June 2009) to the most recent month for which figures are available (June 2013)—the median American household income has fallen by $2,380 (from $54,478 to $52,098). So the typical American household is making almost $2,400 less per year (in constant 2013 dollars) than it was four years ago, when the Obama "recovery" began."
I see a disconnect between what you complain about, namely the "typical American's" income and policies that you support or don't support, namely minimum wage laws and labor regulations.
According to the data, by age group, median income declined for households all groups except those 65 and older. The most decline occurred in those groups already in the low income category. To redress this one would think that raising the minimum wage and supporting unionization, two areas that lead to higher worker pay are solutions. Yet, conservatives resist both of these solutions but still complain about the outcome.
Not only that, he ran around for 5 years shouting recovery this, and recovery that, and if only we'd raise taxes then poor people will become rich, and things will be even once again..
The "liberal" way is not to lift the poor out of poverty. They want to drag the rest of us down to their level so they feel better. He want us all to be equal.......equally poor.
99% of America would be SO much better off today if Clinton would have vetoed the Gramm Leach Bliley Act back in 2000.
Would have prevented the Bush near depression of 2008.
Whiny Pubs still blame Obama. They don't grasp politics or economics.
Really? How so?
Gramm- Leach- Bliley allowed financial institutions to expand their speculation by leveraging their federally-guaranteed deposits, that would not have otherwise happened had GS remained intact.
Having said this, had GS remained intact, it would not have prevented:
1) Financial institutions from issuing mortgages to inappropriate borrowers and then selling these mortgages so they wouldn't be caught holding the bag when the payments stopped
2) Financial firms being required to keep enough assets on hand to protect against speculative investments that went bad. In fact, the formulas used to compute Net Capital for the fab five ( Lehman, Bear, Merrill, Morgan Stanley and Goldman) were changed to allow them to increase their leverage and this happened in 2004.
3) The institutional bank run on some banks when it became apparent that things were going south
4) A profound misalignment of incentives between the performance of financial firms and the pay of the executives who ran them.
5) The lack of criminal prosecution, meant that individual executives profited personally from decisions that were catastrophic for the banks they ran. These banks are quite capable of sustaining a court defense forever.
6) The independent credit rating agencies from assigning investment grade ratings to private label mortgage-backed securities.
7) The over reliance on such credit ratings instead of prudent due diligence on the part of most ( not all) institutional investors, the big money.
8) Every tom, dick and harry from prematurely extracting the paper equity in their homes and using it to live beyond their means, while it lasted.
9) The unprecedented number of people who chose to walk away from their obligations, when it became obvious they owed more than their property was worth, no different than # 5.
I see a disconnect between what you complain about, namely the "typical American's" income and policies that you support or don't support, namely minimum wage laws and labor regulations.
According to the data, by age group, median income declined for households all groups except those 65 and older. The most decline occurred in those groups already in the low income category. To redress this one would think that raising the minimum wage and supporting unionization, two areas that lead to higher worker pay are solutions. Yet, conservatives resist both of these solutions but still complain about the outcome.
What a line of bull ****.
Only a small, very small percentage of the population work for minimum wage, and I thought you said labor regulations dont affect businesses and their ability to increase pay?
To redress the problem with low income categories you need to increase the DEMAND for jobs.. not decrease it..
The only people recovering are the plutocrats who are glad we're finally returning to the Gilded Age. Soon there wont be any pesky middle class or unions to stir up trouble.
The natural state is wealth and poverty.
There is no common definition for middle class.
Unions and government lifted people into middle -class.
Non-public unions peaked in the 50's. Beginning in the 60's they had competition from off shore labor sources. No one was willing to pay a dime more for made in the USA, so that U.S. people could have a middle class lifestyle.
Technology has and will continue to eliminate middle class jobs by the tens of millions.
Laws enabled public unions. Over time, the negotiated comp/benefit packages generally became substantially richer than anything within the private sector.
The GI bill allowed returning vets who desired to do so, to attend college on the government dime. Student loans allowed the masses to attend school. No doubt these perks contributed to the increasing cost of a college education. And yet, without these perks, education would generally have remained limited to the wealthy, instead of the great unwashed masses.
The financial resources backing the tea party interests has been playing a segment of the population to believe that all we have to do is cut government spending and all will be well. If it gains momentum, the followers will see the outcomes, because it's the redistribution of wealth that enabled middle class.
Is everything that's bad or not improved or plain failed that the potus has tried still Bushs fault ? Thats all I still here and its old.
When Hilary is the next president eill it still be Bushs fault?
Its party politics that's killing america, not one individual person.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2
The idea that falling household incomes is the fault of the President seems a bit suspect. The President proposes a Jobs Bill, that would have added a million jobs, and the House GOP stands in the way. Yet, these are same people blame the President for low employment.
One of the remarkable things about the ongoing economic crisis is the endless blame and search for explanations of something that’s actually quite simple -- the sluggish pace of recovery. You have a large overhang of private debt; you have a still-depressed housing sector; and you have contractionary fiscal policy. Add to this the well-established fact that recovery tends to be slow after recessions caused not by tight money but by private-sector overreach, and there’s just no mystery that needs explaining.
The idea that falling household incomes is the fault of the President seems a bit suspect. The President proposes a Jobs Bill, that would have added a million jobs, and the House GOP stands in the way. Yet, these are same people blame the President for low employment.
Bull crap..
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
One of the remarkable things about the ongoing economic crisis is the endless blame
Even more remarkable is your ability to stand there post endless blame is you actually believe the garbage you write..
While I do not agree that had Glass- Steagall remained intact, it would have prevented the financial crisis, the Gramm- Leach- Bliley thing was a Republican initiative.
Regardless, a majority in Congress approved it. It is non-partisan.
Is everything that's bad or not improved or plain failed that the potus has tried still Bushs fault ? Thats all I still here and its old.
When Hilary is the next president eill it still be Bushs fault?
Its party politics that's killing america, not one individual person.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
